Resale value of homes with solar panels...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 10 2007, 05:01 PM) [snapback]373806[/snapback]</div>

I doubt you'll get back what you put into them. Otherwise every house would have them. Not everybody is going to want to have to keep up with the maintenance (whatever it might be, I don't know).

I've been casually thinking about adding some for a few years. Maybe I'll think about it some more. Of course, I'm not planning on selling any time soon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 10 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]373856[/snapback]</div>

Hmm. Interesting logic. I'm sure I won't get back what I put into my landscaping... yet every house around here does seem to have landscaping of some sort. I also won't get back what I put into my bath remodel, though all the homes have baths too. Hmmm. Now the differences - PV panels displace energy - a product that is INCREASING in price every year. I think a PV installation has a WAY better chance of paying you back than most other additions you consider.

Yikes. Maintenance? There isn't any.

Please do! And learn a bit about them on your way.

Back to the OP... nobody has a crystal ball on this stuff. But certainly if you have two equal homes on the same block and one comes with pre-paid electricity for the next entire generation... I think it would look more attractive!

 

Bathrooms and Kitchens get you the best ROI. Pretty much all of the typical home improvement upgrades are 50% at best. Even things like newer windows which at least lower you heating/cooling bills. As Darell points out though, PV is a different beast. I would guess it would really improve the saleability of the property, though I don't know how the comps would work out. Most realtors probably have no clue on that one. Hell, most appraisers are probably complete clueless too. I think that perhaps the only kind of place that it would hurt curb appeal is in a really posh neighborhood where conspicuous consumption is king. Though, the array way assuage some guilt. The same goes for solar thermal but probably to a lesser degree.

 

I would guess that most buyers will be put off by solar panels, and they will actually reduce the value of a house, much as swimming pools do. I like swimming pools, but most people consider them a liability and a waste of yard space. A lot will depend on the market; for example, in a warm climate, high-end neighborhood, a pool is a plus - not that you'll get your money back on the investment, but at least it won't be a liability. Same thing for solar panels; Northern California buyers will be a lot more receptive than those in Michigan or Wisconsin. As stated before, kitchens and bathrooms give the best return at around 50%. The very best return comes from removing an obvious problem or blemish; removing old underground fuel tanks for example.

Tom

 

We have a tract home that I have retrofitted. We have complete monthly natural gas and elecricity records back to 1989. The Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) is 1.0 or less (superior). Our mean monthly utility bill is less than $30 year round. House is extremely quiet. As a scientist and my wife a professional planner, we strive to model what we teach and do, including driving a Prius.

Ceiling insulation is R-100, ceramic tile floor, triple and quadruple pane windows, fully insulated garage (including roof) and garage door, storm liners on drapes, double dual pane sliding glass doors, caulking on every crack, gaskets behind every switch and outlet plate. Front porch is a dual pane glass vestibule. Two conventional natural gas water heaters are wrapped four times. All pipes are insulated. Pay back time to "break even" on energy improvements compared to surrounding neighbors: 2.5 years (more than 10 years ago).

The local newspaper did a two full page article on the house last August. The reporter used a bold quote in the title, "You can put money in the window one time, or you can throw money out the window every month." We had the house for sale from May to December. The realtor blew off the energy efficiency saying "no one cares about that stuff!" At open houses contractors came through and would flat out state that R-100 insulation is not possible (I would then open the attic access and show them the special materials - rigid foil-faced polystyrene foam - not very thick, but extremely insulating). Others would come through, look at the utility records, then ask if we actually lived in the house. The realtor said the only way to achieve our tract record of less than $30 month year round is that we "freeze in the dark in winter and perspire in the dark in summer."

I am a consultant to contractors who build Ecco block houses using SIPs, triple pane windows and photovoltaic systems (Alvis Brothers). Even the Alvis Brothers are amazed at what we achieve and how comfortably we live at such low cost. But, contractors, realtors and the general public are extreme skeptics and of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. "If it is too good to be true, it probably is."

We have taken our house off the market and now looking forward to building an Ecco block house in the next five years. But, when it comes time to sell our current house we need to work with a knowledgable an receptive realtor.

The best you can do is model what you speak. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make a horse drink. As energy costs continue to increase people will come around, but with extreme suspicion. Sacramento newspapers have been running articles on "Sacramento Without Oil," looking to how cities and people will function in the not too distant future.

So, in the mean time, model what you know and what you teach. You cannot force people to be frugal.

 

good stuff skruse. What precisely are the gaskets? Can you buy them at Home Depot and the like? Are they easy to install. I'm always looking from more low hanging fruit to pick.

The sacremento without oil stuff is bollocks. I read one of them and it completely failed to mention the fact that we don't need oil with the massive coal beds we have. Natually, a CTL future is the last thing we want. The environmental impacts would be horrible, but if we peak anytime seem you'll see CTL going gang busters. What people need to realize is that what we're doing is unsustainable, regardless of how much fossil fuel is left out there. It's not a shortage of hydrocarbons that's the problem, it's our us of them and many other aspects of society that's the issue.

Good stuff about the house. You were wise to bin that realtor. Why wouldn't they market that aspect? That's just silly.

 

When I refinanced my house in the 90s with the idea of making home improvements I asked the appraiser about solar panels. He said not to bother because no one knew enough about them and they wouldn't improve the value of my home.

Here is is maybe 15 years later and it's the same thing. Now natural gas and electricity have gone up. People are concerned about gas and gas mileage. Global Warming is now accepted and people are starting to be concerned about what can be done and what, as individuals, they can do.

And the real estate sector is still clueless about the value and marketing of solar panels?

Well, I'll be getting a home equity loan this year to put in the Photo Voltaic panels I have been coveting for low, these many years. I might even put in on-demand water heater at the same time. Not that much more and why wait until this one dies. It's already past it's life expectency. As near as I can determine, this is the best year to put in the PV under California's new Million Solar Roofs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 11 2007, 08:35 PM) [snapback]374530[/snapback]</div>

The real estate industry is clueless because they just don't encounter it much. Me mum, who's an agent here in CO, has had one person from Jersey ask about them. So she asked me and we pointed the person in the right direction. Other than that nobody. Of course, this is CO, not CA but then again, there are a helluva lot more people in CA and the vast majority of folks are clueless too. I bet the situation changes dramatically in the next five years.

What's the cost difference between an on demand water heater and going solar thermal? Look into solar water heating, it might make more sense for you. It might not, but in SoCal I bet you'll never have fuel costs again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 12 2007, 09:14 PM) [snapback]374991[/snapback]</div>

I don't know. I suppose I could look into putting solar water on my bedroom roof (lower than the house and hidden from the street AND closer to the current hot water heater, which is in the kitchen) but that would only have to be tied in to my current water heater and used as a "booster". There is also the issue of weight. I'm not sure if my roof can take the weight. Then there's cost. I can't imagine solar hot water being cheaper to install and maintain than an on demand system. I already have natural gas so installing an on demand is a lot easier, even if I add a water softener, which I probably will. The water heater is in a closet in the kitchen. I've measured it and an on demand system will fit in the same space, can use the same pipes and flue. If it has to be replaced twenty years down the road I won't be have roof repairs to deal with. I also think on demand is a lot more efficient than a water heater, which I will still need to have even if the solar water heater pre-heats the water.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 12 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]375009[/snapback]</div>

You'll need a new specialized water heater for a solar water heating system. This would either replace your current one or be in addition to it.

Unless there's something wrong with your roof, it should be able to handle the solar collectors. I've never heard of any needing reinforcing.

An on-demand system will definitely be cheaper to install. It's just that you're still paying to heat the water. A solar water heating system does it for free (after you've paid, say $5000 for the system).

 

I'm reading up on it now.

I've got a 20 gallon natural gas water heater in the kitchen closet. It's fine for me.

The systems I'm reading up on now need minimum 30, preferably 40 gallons, 50 gallons best. It says the bigger the storage the better. That won't fit. None of them. There's no place to put it. I'm not going to put it on the roof. The garage is a separate building. They are open loop systems. It's also only 30% to 90% of my water needs. So I'll still need to heat it somehow.

The point of an on-demand is that it only works when the water is needed. That will save money over what I currently have. Instead of the heater going all of the time to keep 20 gallons of water hot all of the time, it will only heat as much water as I need when I need it.

If I had a pool I would heat it with solar. But this is just me in the house. (The dog doesn't bath that often and prefers tepid showers.) It looks like solar costs more and provides less. Yes, the on-demand water heater will use natural gas. But the second one (20 years from now) would probably be electric once I add more PV panels. I'm hoping by that time SDG&E will be paying ME to generate electricity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 12 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]375029[/snapback]</div>

Well, you wouldn't wanna heat water with electricity from a PV array. That'd cost you a fortune unless the price of PV (subsidized or otherwise) drops dramatically. Hopefully it will but not for while yet. Solar thermal doesn't just preheat the water. It heats it, and quite well in most conditions.

From what I've read about SWH typically installations run $1500 - $3500. The cost varies a bit because each installation is different. Some are easy to pull off others are more difficult. There's a federal tax credit that rebates 30% of the cost of the system. AFAIK, the rebate is available until the end of this year. It may get extended it may not. I don't know the latest on that.

I'd be surprised if you got less than 90% of your hot water from the sun given that you're in San Diego and your requirements are low. Sounds like you don't have space for it though so the on demand may be the way to go for you.

Cost is tricky because the price of NG isn't stable and there's a lot of upward pressure on the price of it. A SWH would cost more upfront for sure. No doubt about that. In 15 years, who knows what the price of NG will be though so the cost comparison is difficult to make. I'm really confident that the price of NG will up but who knows by how much?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 13 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]375076[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm thinking that in 10-20 years the price of natural gas will have gone up so much that putting in another panel would pay. The on demand water heater will probably have to be replaced in 15-20 years. If at that time natural gas has gone up significantly switching to electric, with the PV keeping me zeroed out, would pay.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 13 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]375076[/snapback]</div>

I call it preheating the water. Yes, the water gets hot. Maybe hot enough. But on some days not. And it has to be stored. I don't have the storage. And on days it isn't hot enough it will have to be further heated. Now, grated, because it is already hot the temperature won't need to be increased that much. But it's a lot of money, a complicated system and a big pain as opposed to replaced a water heater that constantly heats with one that only heats on demand, as in when I need the water. Then stops.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 13 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]375076[/snapback]</div>

Space is definately a problem. I'm in an older home, built in 1919. I don't' want to do anything to seriously damage the integrity of the home's vintage design. That is why I'm not stripping the siding to insulate and replacing all of the windows with new. If I lived with extreme heat and cold I would. But it's San Diego. I'll compromise so I don't have to bastardize my house.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 13 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]375076[/snapback]</div>

There is peak natural gas just like there's peak oil. Also, the infrastructure for transporting natural gas across the US is very old and not being maintained. I think we're going to start to see leaks. Some are going to be expensive. The local, state and federal government are all going to deny responsibility and try to get each other to pay. I think it's going to get nasty.

But for now, even with the tax credit it just isn't cost effective to put in Solar Hot Water for my needs.

This is what I'm looking at:

Bosch Tankless Hot water heater

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 10 2007, 05:01 PM) [snapback]373806[/snapback]</div>

I found this on a site that installs PV. Granted they *are* trying to sell a product. But keep in mind here in California PV is getting a lot of talk, esp. with the Governator's Million Solar Roofs bill.

"In addition to this direct return through utility savings, homeowners can also expect that their property resale value will increase substantially. An article in the Appraisal’s Journal showed that property resale values will increase $10-20 for every $1 saved annually in electricity."

Borrego Solar

 

http://www.suntechnics.com/us/incentives_1sc.htm

Residential Example (3 kWp System)
as of 7/1/06
Here is an example of potential savings based on incentives and other factors*

Solar Electric System Cost:
Market Average System Price,
installed (before incentives) $ 25,500
One-Time 2006 CEC Rebate
(@ $2,600/kWp) -$ 7,800
Subtotal $ 17,700
One-Time Federal Tax Credit
(30%, Residential Cap at $2,000)
- $ 2,000
Net Price $ 15,700
Estimated Increase in
Home Value
(exempt from property taxes)
$ 20,000


Clean energy from your home´s roof


Note: Estimated increase in home value based on a study from The Appraisal Institute states that the selling price of homes increased by $20.73 for every $1 decrease in annual fuel bills. A typical 3 kWp system estimates a savings of approximately $1,000 in annual energy costs, equaling an increased value of your home by $20,000.

 

I don't know how the utitlities are rated in Ventura, but in San Diego we have a tiered system with huge increases in rates when you move from baseline to tier 1, tier 1 to tier 2 etc.

To get your useage into and kept in baseline is huge. To reduce that to almost 0 could save thousands.

I'm sure my yearly useage is something like $1200 - $2000 a year. If I can get that close to $5-10 a year, that's a huge savings to me.

So add that to everything else.

Personally? I think having a PV system and proving that your yearly bill is next to nothing is a HUGE added on value, no matter what realtors might say. If all things are equal, people buying a home will probably go with the solar over the nothing. Who cares what the roof looks like?

BTW I found out there are tax incentives for the tankless water heater too. Ends Dec. 2007, so yep, that's going in this year too.

 

I WANT solar panels. My wife may tolerate them, but I WANT them. We've had several contractors over. BIGGEST turn off from their sales pitch, according to my wife, was their statement that, "THESE WILL INCREASE the value of your home substantially".

She's the 2nd largest volume mover of realty for her company's office in our affluent county, so I have to give her opinion a bit of authority ... but it was difficult. Fact is, according to her, folks mostly buy homes for the HOME. We're on a man made lake. The VIEW is everything, and in comparison the house is just a box. Main chanel view homes, on the lake costs more than being down on a key, and views from farther away, up on the hill are worth less. However, if it's a 40 year old 1960's 3 bedroom ranch, americana, average community, all things being equal, the panels will account for a LITTLE more value, but in her expert opinion, ONLY a little more. Kind of sad. So I'll be adding panels, but it will be for a higher motive than increasing the value of the box we live in.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Jan 13 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]375174[/snapback]</div>

I think it depends on the clientele.

There are no views in my area. Square footage and location location location are the thing of course. But there is a segment of the realty market that is looking at dollar value and not having to pay SDGE for electricity would be very attractive to them. So, for now it is a niche market. She's not in that niche. I think I might be. My home is in an older neighborhood, not the greatest neighborhood. But I'm freeway close to everything, 10 min. from downtown and affordable. When the average price of a home way out is a few hundred thousand more, I think where I am PLUS having the PV will be attractive.

But...I'm not doing it for a potential, future buyer. I'm doing this for ME. When I remodeled my kitchen and my bathroom I did it for ME. *I* have to live here so I'm pleasing myself. And I choose to have no electric bill and a tankless water heater. I think in the end that decision will be seen as just as smart as buying Prius before gas went up. Funny, when gas hit $3.00 no one was making fun of me or my car anymore. I expect I'll get some comments from my Dad about wasting my money. And in a year or two he'll be asking me all about it because he's going to do it too. I know he's already thought about Solar hot water, PV and even a wind turbine.

As one of the sites said, your monthly utility bill is like a loan payment you make every month. (With an unknown APR and no cap.)